[CCWG] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-ccwg-ratelimited-increase-06
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), and one
non-blocking COMMENT points/nits.

Special thanks to  for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG
consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of
https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by
a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
convinced otherwise.

### Section 3.2.1

Why not a "MUST" (or lowercase "should") in `Therefore, congestion control
algorithms SHOULD implement a behavior that is equivalent to Rate-Limited
Increase, irrespective of whether they use a cwnd variable or not.` See also
the IESG statement about providing guidance when SHOULD is used
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 3.1

Who is the "we" in `We illustrate the working of...` ? The authors ? The WG ?
The IETF community ? Please avoid ambiguities. Possibly also in other places.